Author Archives: jaimerhamilton

New Judge, Old Court

It is the first day in the full time judicial career of HHJ Darren Leben-Boot (known as Daz to his friends). Whilst the heart and the pension pot is full of joy, the day carries some sadness for the latest Circuit Judge appointment. He will miss the robing room and his colleagues in chambers. And then there is the move. His offer came for an appointment in a far flung Court, one which he had never visited. So life has been uprooted and new beginnings are taking place in new surroundings.

He checks himself in the mirror once again. The bands are brand new and shiny white. The red sash sits on his shoulder. The new wig sits where the old wig sagged. His usher comes to the door to escort him into court. The new Judge feels a little uncomfortable with John the usher punctuating every sentence with “Sir”.

They walk down the corridor which smells a bit like his grandmother’s retirement home. A knock on a door, then “All rise” and he emerges, blinking into the light of the courtroom, his courtroom.

The familiar now has a new focus, a different vantage point. It is only as he takes his seat that he begins to take in his surroundings. Counsel’s row is full of bewigged barristers. But then HHJ Leben-Boot does a double take. The wigs are there, but are perched atop white hard hats. The gowns are there, but each one cloaked in a hi-viz vest. Like Rumpole trying to recreate the Village People.

Counsel stage left gets to her feet, she balances her hard hat and wig combination in a Swiss finishing school lesson in deportment.

“May we welcome Your Honour to the Crown Court sitting at Shambles-upon-the-Wold, and indeed this Circuit,” Counsel begins, in the customary welcome to the newly appointed.

She pauses, and reaches down to the seat next to her.

“And as a gesture of welcome, may we present Your Honour with this, the Circuit Office provided safety wear,” and with that Counsel presents the usher with a neatly folded yellow fluorescent waistcoat and purple hard hat.

Counsel continues; “Your Honour is being provided with head gear colour coded to your office.”

A bemused Judge takes the folded gilet and hat from his usher, whom he now notes is wearing a black safety helmet.

“Thank you Miss Rouen for those kind words, and indeed for the gift. But may I ask one thing….why?” His Honour inquires.

With a sense of timing often lacking in the drama of a courtroom, the question mark at the end of the sentence has barely left the Judge’s mouth when there is a sudden cry of “INCOMING!!!” as a segment of lighting strip detaches from the ceiling and crashes on to Counsel’s row, scattering Juniors left and right.

The new Judge hurriedly dons his hard hat, wedging it on top of his wig.

“I see Your Honour adopts the Devon approach,” Miss Rouen announces, seemingly unperturbed by her colleagues who have now produced hand brushes and dustpans from their red bags and are busying themselves sweeping away the fragments of lighting tube.

“I’m sorry?” the Judge responds.

“We are all very much hat first, wig on top. The Cornwall method. Whereas Your Honour has gone wig then hat, like they do in Devon. It is quite a heated debate,” Miss Rouen explains.

The Judge breathes a deep sigh. A confused sigh. He looks beyond counsel and sees scaffolding at the back of his courtroom, climbing all the way up to the ceiling, a skeleton of scaffolding poles and planks.

“Is this what the scaffolding is for? For workmen to repair the lights?” the Judge addresses his question to anyone prepared to answer.

“No,” Miss Rouen replies, as she is on her feet. “That is simply there to hold the ceiling in place.”

By coincidence there is a new journalist in court. He realises he is sitting beneath the aforementioned scaffolding. Hurriedly, he moves to the seat next to his. The seat immediately gives way beneath him and he rolls towards the court door. Two of his colleagues from the Fourth Estate rush to his aid, two others use all their experience to stifle giggles.

The Judge can feel dignity ebbing away quicker than the life span of a Justice Secretary. He straightens his hard hat (he knows enough already not to chance removing it) and asks that the first case is called on.

“Call Colin Apse,” the Clerk announces.

The usher picks up a nose clip, the sort used by synchronised swimmers, and attaches it to his nose.

“John,” the Judge whispers urgently. “What are you doing?”

“It’sth for de drainsth, thir,” comes the nasal reply.

“Do they smell that bad?” asks the Judge.

The usher reaches beneath his table and slips on a pair of galoshes.

“De do once they thoaked into de carpet, thir. Espethially as we kept de heating on all thummer becuathe we were thcared it wouldn’t sthwitch on again, thir.”

Hard hat, nose clip and galoshes in place, John the usher makes his way to the courtroom door. He sidesteps a rolling member of the press and places his hand on the handle of the door. Which immediately comes off in his hand. He removes his nose clip.

“I am sorry Your Honour, amongst the collapse of the Court Estate, it would appear that it was too much to expect egress to work.”

“Come again?” asks the Judge.

“We are locked in Your Honour,” John the usher replies with a shrug.

The Judge slumps in his seat. He looks at the calendar before him. He takes a pen and crosses through that day’s date.

Only 4,399 days to go to, he thinks to himself, already counting down the days to retirement.

The Reluctant Witness

A view from the North

“What a day I had the other day, I tell you. Had to go to court, I was the prosecution’s star witness, me. Not that I should get ahead of myself, mind.

“It was about that bit of a do I witnessed that time, you remember? Didn’t know where to look, me, so ended up looking right at it and giving a statement to the police and that.

“So I got this letter through saying I had to go and give evidence. The nice police man had told me I would do. But the letter, the letter only goes and tells me I had to go to t’other court. You know, the one three buses away.

“The local one, the one in town, well they’ve only gone and shut it down. Do you know Joan? You do, you do know Joan….. Joan, with the funny looking eyebrows? Got a son…

View original post 1,074 more words

Why I Vote Yes

This blog post have been published on the CBA blog with a number of such blogs of competing opinions. You can see all the blogs here. If you are a criminal barrister it is very important for you to inform yourself and to use your vote.

I was not a part of the committee which assisted in the design of the new fee scheme. I am not a CBA Officer or executive committee member. I do not hold any position on my Circuit. And no, I am not the Secret Barrister.

Now as well as reading like a deeply unimpressive negative version of a CV, the point is that I am not invested in the vote regarding the MoJ’s proposals, save the investment of facing another twenty years of earning my living doing this job. The fact that I am not the Secret Barrister also means that I do not have the additional income of the royalty cheques from a top ten best seller to help me pay my way. It is criminal barristering and criminal barristering alone which pays the bills. Which is why I am anxious that we get this decision right.

Because I do not fill my time by contributing to legal society by being on committees, I spend a lot of time on social media. And it strikes me that there has been a lot on social media about the current proposal which is just wrong.

This 1% increase is just another cut when inflation is 2.5%!!!

It perhaps goes without saying that it is less of a cut than inflation alone but that’s not the point. The point is that it is not just 1% being added to fee levels as of April next year. That misunderstands the proposal. There is an additional 1% but that is on top of new money from outside the AGFS budget that has been used to work out the figures in the new scheme.

I have seen the figures from someone who has lost 30% as a result of these fees….

The document that has been circulating around indicates 5 out of 9 cases that make up the figures relied upon were 10,000 PPE cases. It may well be that many people have a practice which mirrors this profile. There are also many people who do not. It does not represent that the new scheme post 1/4 means a 30% cut on all fees. And the information provided in that document is the unaltered fee scheme. There is new money to ameliorate these reductions. But that does not mean the new money is to reflect an acceptance that there are cuts to the overall budget. These paper heavy junior cases were cut to rob Petra to pay Paula. Now Petra is getting some or all of her money back

The first increase isn’t new money, this scheme represents massive cuts, so giving 5% back doesn’t replace the 30% I have lost.

There are a range of fees under the new scheme which suffer swingeing cuts. But there are also plenty of fees, generally speaking either in the work of the more junior barrister, certain sex cases or Silks, where there have been significant fee increases. What you do not tend to find is barristers who take to Twitter to publish a range of cases which have seen a fee increase under the new scheme.

No one ever takes the first offer….

I could see that there may be some logic in that if this was the first offer. But it plainly is not. The MoJ did not call the CBA up out of the blue and say “here it is, take it or leave it”. This has been the culmination of weeks of work. But the other thing is, in this context, plenty of people do take the first offer. The context being a negotiation about rates of remuneration. So, once the Trade Union activists have negotiated and negotiated they will take the package they have negotiated to their members. And, often, the members will vote on that offer and accept it. The Trade Union negotiators have not spent all that time eating sandwiches and staring at the management. They have been negotiating. Offer and counter offer. That is what has happened here. It definitely is not the first offer. There is a risk it is the last offer.

This offer (whether it be 1% or 2% or 5%) is derisory and an insult…

I have previously used the fact that we have had a real term cut year in and year out for 20 years in my argument as to why we are right to take action. I did not for one minute think I was going to get it all back in one go. Or ever. I have bemoaned the fact that we have been cut and cut again. But I do not think we can now win fights we lost twenty years ago, fifteen years ago or five years ago. In relation to public sector remuneration, this increased offer is not derisory. We should be very wary about framing it so. And particularly when our colleagues in the solicitor profession have just suffered another cut.

I will not just criticise what I see as “myths” that have built up around the negotiations and the proposal but I will deal with the positive case as to why I will vote “yes”. Before I do, however, I make it crystal clear that what matters is not the figure of £12 million or 6.6% or 1%. It is what we can see we are getting paid for the case. And whether that is enough we cannot say until we see the new figures in the boxes. And if they are not right, I will be the first to say we reject them.

I vote “yes” because I believe this is the best we are going to achieve at this moment. I was very vocal about the fact we should not have accepted the deal offered by the MoJ when we first operated a “no returns” policy four years ago. I foresaw that this would lead to all sorts of problems. I thought this was the only way we could get more. I was wrong. I did not listen to the people in the room. They were right.

That does not mean I have blind faith. But it did teach me a lesson. In this instance Angela Rafferty QC and the CBA have been canny enough to call for action when others were saying we should just adopt the new scheme. They were canny enough to know that they needed militant action to achieve a result. They knew what it took to get new money when everyone else was saying there was no money. They have also been astute enough to gather together this particularly argumentative group of wigged cats and herd a significant enough number of us in the right direction. They have called for staged action and have added to that a bit of political fancy footwork. All of that has shown good judgement and astute tactics. And now ARQC tells us they have achieved all they can. Against that backdrop do we bet against that judgement? I don’t. Because that is a bet which, if we lose, we lose heavily.

That is not just a call to listen to your elders. That is not just me tamely following what the Silks tell us. It is me trusting the judgement of someone that has proven themselves to be deserving of that trust. I am not following instinct. I am following the evidence.

The proposal reflects the best that can be achieved for the whole of the Bar, doing justice between competing interests of practice type, specialisms, level of call and geographical area. There will still be fee anomalies. They happen under any scheme which pays for anything other than each hour reasonably worked, they happen under the scheme with the PPE proxy. With the new scheme we have certainty of the level of fee when the invitation to the digital system lands. If you decide the fee is not adequate, do not take the case.

If we had been told twelve months ago that we were going to be paid more for sentences, that we were gong to get a refresher for our second daily attendance and that refreshers did not halve after 40 days, we would have been pretty pleased. If we were also told that the overall budget available was going up, we would have been over the moon. If we were told that we were going to get our first ever planned increase, we would have thrown a street party in the Temple. There would not have been action. There would not have been a poll. The fact that the money for most of that was coming from within the scheme itself, that the money was being taken from other cases to fund the improvements, caused us to have to take action. We have to cease the action for now to assess whether that has been put right satisfactorily. We have missed out on the street party by the method of how we got here, but we are not at a wake.

The one thing which shines out from this is that we have a change in the direction of travel. I have been a barrister for 25 years. I have been working, campaigning and fighting for adequate remuneration for the last 15 years. Never have we ever got even close to a rise in remuneration. And now we have. That is not derisory. That is a victory. It does not give us everything, far from it. But it is a victory the likes of which we have never ever seen before. It is unique. Now we should not take any old offer, but before we reject an offer as derisory we have to set it in that context. It is only derisory if we let it be the only positive for the next 20 years. Each time we have fought, we have won. So we come back again, a year from now, and we negotiate with the might of action at our elbows. We are not going to get the last 20 years back in one go, nor are we going to sit back and say that 1% will do for the next 20.

I say to you all now that you should only vote for future candidates for the role of vice-chair and then chair of the CBA if they include a manifesto pledge to negotiate a rise in fees in their two year tenure, to be backed up with action in the event of refusal by the Government. The rise should become the norm, not the exception. To achieve that the Government have to fear our collective power, with no evidence of its failure. Accepting the proposal is not a failure.

As soon as this action is over we should turn our attention to prosecution fees. We should begin a real, proactive plan for the whole of the criminal justice system. Accepting the proposal allows us the time to do this and do this properly.

And I stress again. If the figures in the boxes of this revised scheme turn out to be wrong, if we do not see the improvements that need to be made, then the Government already know our answer – if the figures are not right, we have the appetite for the fight.

We Are Right

Here we are again. No new work being undertaken. The prospect of days of action. No returns to return. Headlines and news stories. Unity and strength. Division and failure.

I support the action proposed by the CBA. I support it to the hilt. I have now been at the Bar for 25 years. Not once in that time has a single fee for work done ever been increased due to inflation. We have had different ways of being paid, different versions of different ways of being paid and then brutal cuts to fees that the Government had previously decided were appropriate remuneration.

That is 25 years of being undervalued and being treated with contempt.

Enough.

The action should not be about maintaining the status quo. We should not be wedded to being paid per page. It is becoming increasingly difficult to assess how many pages some forms of digital evidence represent. It is taking up a disproportionate amount of time to argue over page counts. As smartphones become ubiquitous and a domestic iron seems to have the processing speed of Mr Babbage, the way evidence is gathered has outstripped the notion of payment per page of paper.

Part of not maintaining the status quo is recognising that fees which have not been increased for inflation and have been subject to cuts so that they are now worth 40% less (in real terms) than when they were first deemed to be appropriate remuneration are not the basis for the figures to go into the boxes of any newly designed scheme.

The MoJ have said it themselves. They described the current AGFS as archaic as they rushed to paint the Bar as being protectionist purveyors of self-interest. I, for once, wholeheartedly agree. The scheme is very old. The level of remuneration we receive for a case is massively out of date. It is not kept up with inflation. And did I mention it has been cut?

So it is the right time to design a new scheme, with new architecture. If we tear down a building to build something modern which is fit for purpose in a low carbon, high tech digital age we do not use the same bricks, the same floor boards, the same single glazed window units and asbestos tiles. And so it is with the scheme which came into force on 1st April. The Bar did their bit by trying to design something modern, the MoJ have built something belonging in the last century.

This is why we are right to take this action and the government response that we helped design this scheme is not a reason why we cannot reject it.

I entirely understand that the Judiciary have to maintain an independence from the actions of the Executive. I also hope that the Judiciary realise that we do a heck of a lot more for a heck of a lot less money than would have been the case when many of them were in our shoes. As I said, I have been doing this job 25 years. When I was trained, when many of the senior Judiciary would have been junior barristers, I had to be concerned about learning how to draft advices on evidence and appeal. And that was about it for written work.

During this week, as well as doing a trial, I have drafted two skeleton arguments, one basis of plea, an adverse verdict report, a bad character response and edited an ABE interview. None of that was work the Bar did twenty years ago. Certainly not with the frequency we now endure. Each year that passes, each year that diminishes our fees by dint of inflation, sees an increase in the workload required by statute, practice direction and order of the Court.

All of that in a working week which follows a period when I have spent two Saturdays in the last eight weeks attending training courses designed to improve our system in relation to sex cases and vulnerable witnesses. I am not seeking to invoke sympathy. I do a worthwhile job and accept that I have to do it properly. But those who think they know what we do, how we do it and what we get paid for it may be thinking of a life at the Bar which is long gone.

Even if a Judge was appointed last year they should remember the steady creep of increased workloads matched by the steady reduction in fees. And I am not going to begin to add in some of the working conditions we face. As Judges they have to maintain their independence. As women and men who are assisted by capable advocates producing skeleton arguments and agreed facts, their hearts and minds should be with us. Their independence does not mean that they should not be able to see through the MoJ spin.

Any Judge who wants to understand more about our position need only ask. I, and many others, would only be too glad to tell them the unvarnished reality. The same offer can be extended to any politician. Or Tax Barrister.

We do not take this action lightly. There will be members of the Bar who are immediately put in financial peril by taking this action. Clients are being disadvantaged. Solicitors are having to deal with fall out of the action, continuing to do their best for clients in incredibly difficult circumstances. But we must take this action. And it has to succeed. If we fail, we do not fail ourselves, but we fail the future. We fail the future of a diverse judiciary. We fail future victims who will be cross-examined by a lower quality advocate. We fail future defendants who will be represented by de-motivated advocates who are the face of an under-valued and under-funded system.

HHJ Burke QC

This is a sad time for the Northern Circuit for we now learn of the death of HHJ Burke QC. And whilst I do not want this blog to become the informal obituary pages for the Circuit, the passing of HHJ Burke QC presents me with the opportunity to tell a tale of one of my more unusual days in court. But more of that in a moment.

Before being HHJ Burke QC, John Burke was plain old John Burke QC. And in his role as John Burke QC I had the privilege to be the junior in a case in which he also defended. And I learnt a very valuable lesson from him in that case. It is a hallmark of my conduct of the longer case, it is something of a trade secret. And here it is….

Small, strong mints.

Yes, that is correct. Small, strong mints. Nero do a fine line in them. As do Marks and Spencer in a tin. Their fiery, strong nature are enough to keep you awake during the dullest of prosecution submissions. Their small size mean they can be popped discreetly into the mouth, often without any accompanying rustle of wrappers. And they are also small enough that they do not inhibit speech if suddenly you are called upon to advocate.

So, with that lesson passed from John Burke QC to me to you (and there is an unexpected Chuckle Brothers reference), John Burke QC became HHJ Burke QC and he took up residence in Court 7 at Minshull Street.

HHJ Burke QC would not be a model for the modern judiciary. He was not a man for the Guideline. He was not really a man for long prison sentences. He definitely was not a man for a short prison sentence. Which is why it is a shame he is not the model for the modern judiciary. It is a shame there are not more like him prepared to extend a second, third or even sixth chance.

He was a friend to the Bar. He was always polite and charming to appear before. He did not like to preside over the unseemly squabble between counsel attempting to fix a case when they were available. So, when presented with competing dates and interests, he would declare, “I am not going to preside over some sort of Dutch auction” and then rise to let counsel agree a date between them.

And so to my anecdote. I was being prosecuted by my mate Gary, as he then was, now HHJ Woodhall. The case was one of assault where the defendant was a woman who had been caused all sorts of problems by an ex. She had ended up assaulting him in circumstances which were either self defence, justified or wholly wrong. At the close of the Prosecution case I rose to make a submission on one count and one count alone. It was some technical point.

So I got to my feet and said, in the time honoured fashion, “Your Honour, there is a matter of law…..”

To which HHJ Burke QC said “Quite right, well members of the jury you have probably heard enough already, so why don’t you leave us for five minutes and have a think about your verdict.” And with that he was gone from the bench and the jury were being ushered out by the appropriately named usher.

Both Prosecution and Defence Counsel were relatively young. This was new. Very new. We anxiously discussed what had happened. We looked in Archbold. I grew pale at the thought I may be the first barrister ever to have their client potted on a half time submission.

So we asked for the Judge to come back in. Respectfully I referred the Judge to the law. I pointed out that the jury needed a clear direction that they were entitled to acquit at this stage and nothing else. Thankfully the Judge agreed and asked for the jury to be brought back.

Once again the usher ushed.

HHJ Burke QC turned to the jury and said, “Well members of the jury, have you heard enough?”

This was not the direction we had agreed. I think I let out a gasp. Or maybe a squeal. Possibly both.

“Yes we have,” said a bloke on the front row, “we don’t want the case to go any further.”

I could have kissed him. We had been spared explaining this in the Court of Appeal. My reputation for not losing defence cases before the defence case remained intact.

“Well at this stage I must remind you that the only verdict you can return is one of not guilty, and it must be the verdict of you all,” directed the Judge. Which was the direction I had hoped for moments earlier, but at least we now had it.

The bloke on the front row turned to the rest of his fellow jurors. There was some whispered chat. A few head shakes. The occasional nod. He turned back round to the Judge.

“In that case, Your Honour, we would like to hear what the defendant has to say for herself…..”

This time I gasped, squealed, gulped and probably swooned. I had now managed to lose a half time submission that I hadn’t even made, the jury having determined that there was a case which cried out for an answer. If anyone was crying, it was me.

In the next half hour or so, with the Jury once more being the subject of more ushing, I managed to persuade the Judge that he should really seize the nettle and withdraw the case from the jury. I quoted some very old law, undoubtedly in quite a high pitched voice. And HHJ Burke QC did what he often did. He applied some common sense and a real sense of fairness. My client walked free and I popped a mint into my mouth, content that I now had a real, bona fide anecdote for the robing room table.

So that is my tale of HHJ Burke QC. I have more. There is the time he told me in his chambers about his chasing of a rabbit in his pyjamas. Or the time he misheard the crucial piece of evidence. Or the time when my pupil master referred to him by his first name, when he should have been calling him “Your Honour”. Or the countless old fashioned indications that he subsequently forgot giving.

Sometimes a footballer becomes so synonymous with a particular shirt number that it is always “their” number. Think Ronaldo and number 7 (although United have had a few handy number 7s). And for me Court 7 is still John Burke’s court. A courtroom in which you would appear before a cordial Judge with a sympathetic streak. So again we mourn and celebrate a life in equal measure.

Sir Andrew Gilbart QC

When Roger Farley QC passed away I was moved to write a short tribute to him. It was the first time I had done this. And now I find myself writing about the passing of another member of the Northern Circuit, this time Sir Andrew Gilbart QC. 

There is a certain symmetry to this. Roger and Andrew shared chambers together for many years. Both of them have sons who are at the Bar in Manchester. Both of them had a significant circumference. Both of them were significant characters. Both of them were formidable advocates. 

Yet where they were similar they were also so different. They were the two sides of the same coin. They were perfect examples of how individuals with very different personalities, very different styles and very different skills can achieve significant success in the field of advocacy. 

Like Roger, I met Andrew when I was a pupil. My very first day on the Northern Circuit was spent with my pupil master in Liverpool Crown Court before Mr Recorder Gilbart QC. By this stage Andrew was an incredibly successful planning Silk who so clearly missed his days of doing criminal trials as a junior. I would see Andrew socially as he was in my then girlfriend’s chambers. He would always seek me out to hear about life at the junior criminal Bar, before he would then tell me tales about his career doing jury trials back in the day. He either did a lot of criminal cases or had a lot of stories about the few he did. 

As a young barrister I played cricket alongside Andrew. It has to be said Andrew was a cricketer of very limited ability. Years later I played for the Circuit alongside his son and my friend, Tom. It transpired that Andrew was the most talented cricketer in his family. By some distance. 

By the time Tom was playing cricket (after a fashion) for the Circuit, his father was already on the Bench, firstly as a Circuit Judge in Preston and thereafter as Recorder of Manchester. It is difficult to entirely encapsulate his judicial style in a few words. Can you have a precision broadside? He was certainly a Judge who let you know his view of things, always wrapped up in his own sense of humour. There were many ways in which things became much clearer when you discovered his American heritage….

It was when he was the Recorder of Manchester that I approached him at Mess to berate him for going too easy on advocates who were not doing the job properly (I may have taken drink). He listened to my complaint. He explained why a Judge had to remain outside of the arena in that way. He then told me “you shouldn’t hold it against people, just because you think you are better at this job than you think they are”. Which was a gentle but heavy admonishment to my intoxicated arrogance. 

He became ill at the point of him becoming a High Court Judge. As far as I can see taking such office should come with a health warning. That was, to my recollection, in 2014. Over the coming weeks, months and then years there were many times when news of his health seemed bleak. Each time he seemed to defy pessimism. He took up his appointment. He then returned to work when others would have retired. For those of you who knew him or had even just appeared before him on one occasion, it is entirely fitting that he was so determined not to let illness think it could have the last word without a fight. 

In 2013 the Northern Circuit organised a meeting for criminal practitioners to discuss the Government’s intention to attack Legal Aid. The meeting was during court sitting hours and was the first concerted action in that fight. Many of us did not attend our part heard trials and hearings that day. In advance of the day I wrote to all the local Judges. The letter was signed by scores of counsel. The letter explained what action we were taking and why we thought it necessary. HHJ Gilbart QC got wind of the fact I had written the letter and asked me to see him in his chambers. 

He made me a cup of tea. For about 45 minutes we debated the rights and wrongs of the Bar’s intention to protest in this way. He reminded me of my duties as an advocate and prevailed upon me to remind those I sought to encourage of their duties. He argued as to why the judiciary could make no allowances for our non-attendance, stating the constitutional importance of maintaining judicial independence. He warned me of the potential for consequences for those involved. We disagreed about much that afternoon. 

When it came time to leave he said “Of course I have been talking to you as the Recorder of Manchester, but as the father of a criminal barrister can I just say….I hope you stick it to them.” In my discussions with my fellow plotters and protesters I did not break Andrew’s confidence when he spoke to me as the father of a friend and colleague. I hope he would forgive me for doing so now. In a way that conversation encapsulated Andrew. His intellect and rigour in the debate, his sense of duty to his judicial role and his concern for the junior criminal Bar. And it also captured how I knew him – respected member of the profession, long standing professional acquaintance who would make me a cup of tea in his chambers once every so often to hear the gossip, slightly fearsome Judge and father of a mate. 

Once again we mourn a figure who lived for their vocation who has passed away before being able to enjoy their reflections on their working life in retirement. My condolences to Tom, Ruth and Paula, to all his family and friends. 

Call The Cops

My friend Delphine has never read my blog. I imagine many of my friends have never read my blog. They are sensible and interesting people so the reading of my blog should fall very low on their list of priorities. Some friends, however, have read my blog and during a recent lull in conversation Delphine heard her husband talking to me about my blog (not that I ask you to infer that Richard is neither sensible nor interesting but he has read my blog) and she asked what I wrote about.

“Music and the law,” I replied.

Momentarily Delphine was interested in the View from the North. She expressed the view that this was an interesting mélange (she did not say mélange but she is French so she should have). She went on to wonder how I managed to weave the two into the same blog. Did I write about the law as it relates to music or did I draw comparisons between music and the law? Or was it about the law featuring in music (as in 10cc’s “Well good morning Judge, how are you today/I’m in trouble, please put me away”)?

Interest soon faded when I explained I wrote about the law and music separately. And that the content was usually me moaning about some aspect of the criminal justice system or writing fanboy reviews of Paul Heaton and Jacqui Abbott. The View from the North, it would seem, is myopic and grumpy, mostly relayed to the soundtrack of broken northern hearts.

Writing a blog about the intersection of law and music would be nigh on impossible for me, I thought. I would not know where to start. The music and the law seldom cross paths unless you are an intellectual property lawyer. I am barely a lawyer, have never been associated with the word “intellectual” and only ever own property when playing Monopoly.

But…..wait a minute….. I have got my one reliable dinner party anecdote. And it is about music and the law. It may be the greatest day of my career. It is a memory that is stored in a box in my mind which has written on it, in big gold letters, “The Day I Represented Shaun Ryder”.

Now, for those of you who are either High Court Judges or oblivious to the splendour of Madchester, Shaun Ryder was the lead singer of the Happy Mondays and Black Grape. He produced such classics as Hallelujah, Step On and In The Name of the Father. If you have not heard of him then check out his bio here and listen to some of his music. Then come back and I will tell you of The Day I Represented Shaun Ryder.

Welcome back to all those who needed Wikipedia and Spotify. I shall continue.

It was 13th July 2000. This was 24 days after Kylie Minogue had released her single “Spinning Around” and was almost exactly 6 years to the day from when I had made my first appearance before a Crown Court (see how effortlessly I can in fact weave music and the law together). I was at Crown Square, the Crown Court in Manchester. And I was being both Big and Important.

I was Big and Important because I was appearing for the first time in a murder. Ok, it was only listed to mention. But I was doing it. And, to quote an obscure fictional legal character, I was doing it alone and without a Leader (the mention, that is, not the whole case).

So when a solicitor whom I knew approached me and asked if I could do him a favour I patiently explained that I was both Big and Important. Doing a bench warrant as a favour for a solicitor was now beneath me.

“Oh, it is just that I need someone to help Shaun Ryder out….”

“Shaun Ryder?” I repeated. “The Shaun Ryder?”

It turned out it was the Shaun Ryder. It turned out that he had been due to appear at court the day before as a witness but had not shown. When he had turned up the Judge demanded he had representation. The Judge thought his failure to attend fell into that category of legal application known as “Something About Which Something Has To Be Done”.

Even Big and Important barristers can find time for a celebrity client. So moments later I found myself in a conference room with Shaun Ryder. Shaun “Pills ‘n’ Thrills and Bellyaches” Ryder. And for those of you from a more modern generation, that is Shaun “Runner-Up in I’m a Celebrity 2010” Ryder.

So I had a conference with one of my musical heroes. The prosecution had produced a letter detailing the efforts they had made in order to inform him of the date of the trial. So I tried to establish where he was living.

“Ahhmkippinatrowettasmahn” was his reply.

I like to think I speak fluent Manc. I had been to the Hacienda. I had lived most of my life seven miles from the City Centre. I had a long sleeve t-shirt with James emblazoned on the front. I had owned a pair of Joe Bloggs jeans. But I could not understand a word he said.

Thankfully his concert promoter was there.

“He has been kipping at Rowetta’s house” he translated. This I understood. Rowetta was the other vocalist from the Happy Mondays.

And the conference continued with simultaneous translation facilities being provided.

So I was able to go into court and explain to HHJ Ensor that my client had not been in attendance the day before because of the most rock and roll of reasons – he had been on a monumental bender. Yep. That was my cunning defence. My client was too pissed to come to court.

Fortunately I was also able to point out that the Judge had no power to do anything at all. Even if my client was famous.

And so we exited court and Shaun Ryder put his hand in his pocket and said to me “let me sort you out with some cash” (at least that’s what the promoter told me he said).

I declined all payment. I had done this as a favour. Not to the solicitor, but to myself. I, a Manchester boy, had just secured myself a footnote in the story of Madchester.

There was just one thing he could do for me though. An autograph. So we scrabbled for a piece of paper and the first thing that came to hand was the letter the police had written about informing him of the court date. He gave it back to me, autograph complete. But not just an autograph. He had written “Call The Cops, Shaun William Ryder”.

If you do know the work of Shaun Ryder, you will know how brilliant that is. If you don’t then “call the cops” is a famous snippet of lyrics from Step On.

And that letter is framed on my study wall


That afternoon I heard my submissions being quoted on Radio 1’s Newsbeat. And the concert promoter very kindly sent me four tickets to the Oasis gig that weekend where the Happy Mondays were the support act.

Later in the evening my university mate Richard sent me a text (and yes, it is the Richard who is now married to Delphine, see above). Richard was in a bar in Belgium. He had just seen the Kylie Minogue video for Spinning Around for the first time. For men of my generation that is our JFK moment. You always remember where you were the first time you saw the hotpants/Kylie thing. So there was Richard, seeing the video for the first time 24 days after the single had been released. And I was able to text back “you’re never going to guess who I represented today….”

So that is the one time law, Shaun Ryder and Kylie Minogue intersected. And because Delphine thought that would be a good basis for a blog I have blown my one good dinner party anecdote.

Well, I do have the story about the MMA promoter and the goldfish. But that needs accents and dramatic pauses. So you will have to invite me round for that one.